updated 02:12 am EDT, Tue September 18, 2012

Matter now at appeals court, out of Judge Koh's jurisdiction

United States District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh has declined to lift the sales injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 she ordered earlier this year. The judge said in a ruling on Monday that it would not be appropriate to restart sales of the tablet, as the matter belongs to the appeals court now. She did note that Samsung's motion raises "substantial issues," given that the jury trial found the product to be not guilty of infringing on Apple's design patents.

Apple has already filed for a new permanent injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 which would replace the preliminary injunction discussed on Monday, citing software patents it believes are infringing. It cites both Judge Koh's own preliminary finding of infringement and Circuit Court Judge O'Malley's dissenting opinion during appeal that said the tablet should have been prevented from entering the market entirely, overturning Koh's original decision saying there was likely infringement of the design patent, but that it was not ban-worthy.

Samsung is facing possible US sales injunctions against almost its entire range of smartphones available in the United States. The lines generate billions of dollars in US sales annually, prompting Samsung to discuss feature removals and workarounds with carriers, along with debating design modifications on some of its smartphones in an effort to keep the products available in the United States after it was handed a resounding defeat by the jurors in its patent battle with Apple.

Samsung will use the ruling to request a hearing in the Court of Appeals for it to lift the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but Apple is sure to argue that since the original injunction includes barring any Samsung products that are "no more than colorably different" from Apple's iPad, both the Galaxy Tab 10.1 2 and the Galaxy Note 10.1 could also be ruled to be barred under the wording of the order. Apple is also likely to claim further infringement by the products with patents not used or dropped from the trial, possibly other design patents as well as the software patents it has already argued.

This whole lawsuit has degenerated into madness. The pre-trial injunction against the Galaxy 10.1 was issued because two courts thought the evidence that it was infringing was so clear, a ban on its sale didn't need to wait. Then the jury found the 10.1 wasn't infringing while accepting far more dubious charges of infringement for other devices. And keep in mine that this is a jury that averaged a minute and a half dealing with each of the questions it was expected to answer. They clearly weren't engaging in Deep Thought.

Imagine a criminal trial in which a jury found Defendant One guilty and Defendant Two Innocent. Yet here we are weeks after that decision with the 'innocent' Defendant Two (the 10.1) still sitting in jail, while no decision as to whether the 'guilty' Defendant One (other Samsung devices) will even go to prison will be made until December.

This lawsuit has become a mess. Either the jury decision, as bizarre as it was, should be followed or that decision tossed out as flawed in numerous ways and a new trial begun.

I can see why Judge Koh wants to toss this problem on to an appeals court. I've heard people in law say that when a trial goes this badly it is always the judge's fault. In this case, that certainly seems to be true. She excluded critical Samsung evidence on technicalities, including examples of prior art whose existence the jury itself wondered about. At times, she seemed to tilt toward Apple. At other times she seemed want the trial to move quickly rather than be done properly. And while the jury certainly behaved awful, they're merely lay people with no experience in law. It's the judge's responsibility to make clear to them what they must do. In this case, that was to take a heck of a lot longer than they did and to ask questions when they didn't understand the law rather than rely on a pompous foreman who thought he knew patent law because he had a patent.

Finally, don't forget that, in the end, you and I will have to pay the costs of all these shenanigans in the prices we pay for products and the muddle of sue-proofing that companies will do to their UIs. The only really winners in this dispute are likely to be the lawyers on both sides.

How do you really feel? Her court is her court, not Apple's or Samsung. With all of the billable hours racked up by both sides, their lawyers muddying the waters in the interest of their clients, she did what she had to do. The jury was presented the cases that fit within the limits imposed by the judge. They gave up weeks of their lives, and did this case as their day jobs. They came to a decision, as required, and now each side is working to stretch the deliberated verdicts with technicalities. It isn't pretty, certainly not efficient, but that's how it is done. Both sides pay dearly for the "fairest" shake they can muster.

Public opinion is a side show that Samsung is using, because they did not have a strong defense that would withstand any scrutiny. Their excluded evidence is and always was a smokescreen that was rightfully excluded because their timing tactics disadvantaged Apple's discovery, and showed contempt of the court.